"Motive cited in Taliban arrest" by Dexter Filkins, New York Times News Service | August 23, 2010
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — When American and Pakistani agents captured Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s operational commander, in the chaotic port city of Karachi in January, both countries hailed the arrest as a breakthrough in their often difficult partnership in fighting terrorism.
Related: Pakistan Sabotaged Taliban Peace Talks
But the arrest of Baradar, the second-ranking Taliban leader after Mullah Muhammad Omar, came with a beguiling twist: Both US and Pakistani officials claimed that Baradar’s capture had been a lucky break. It was only days later, the officials said, that they finally figured out who they had.
Now, seven months later, Pakistani officials are telling a very different story. They say they set out to capture Baradar and used the CIA to help them do it because they wanted to shut down secret peace talks that Baradar had been conducting with the Afghan government that excluded Pakistan, the Taliban’s longtime backer....
The events surrounding Baradar’s arrest have been the subject of debate inside military and intelligence circles for months. Some details are still murky — and others vigorously denied by some US intelligence officials in Washington.
Then they must be true.
But the account offered in Islamabad highlights Pakistan’s policy in Afghanistan: retaining decisive influence over the Taliban, thwarting archenemy India, and putting Pakistan in a position to shape Afghanistan’s postwar political order.
“We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us,’’ said a Pakistani security official, who, like numerous people interviewed about the operation spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of relations among Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States. “We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians.’’
Yeah, NO MENTION of INDIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICE and their operations in Afghanistan, or of "Al-CIA-Duh!"
Readers, I am REALLY SICK of the SHIT being turned out by the NYT and AmeriKa's MSM these days.
Some American officials still insist that Pakistan-US cooperation is improving, and they deny a central Pakistani role in Baradar’s arrest. They say the Pakistanis may now be trying to rewrite history to make themselves appear more influential.
This is REALLY REACHING the point of ANGERING ABSURDITY, readers!!
The NYT is the LEAST qualified to comment on REWRITING HISTORY!!
“These are self-serving fairy tales,’’ a US official said....
Oh, like that FALSE-FLAG INSIDE JOB called 9/11?
Other American officials suspect the CIA may have been unwittingly used by the Pakistanis for the larger aim of slowing the pace of any peace talks.
Then THEY REALLY STINK as a SPY AGENCY and should be DISBANDED RIGHT NOW!
At a minimum, the arrest of Baradar offers a glimpse of the multilayered challenges the United States faces as it tries to prevail in Afghanistan....
Yeah, at a minimum (whatever the facts are), it EMPHASIZES the AGENDA!
And CUI BONO?
Exactly why the Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Service Intelligence, or ISI, became so alarmed at the Afghan peace talks is unclear. In retrospect, paranoia seems to have figured as much as national self-interest.
Yeah, keep on PILING ON the INSULTS and LIES, NYT!!
And since when did Pakistan start ACTING LIKE ISRAEL, huh?
A senior Afghan official said that beginning late last year, his government had reached out to a number of Taliban leaders to explore the prospect of a deal. Among them were Baradar and a leader named Tayyib Agha....
And the U.S. can NOT STAND for that!
Ever notice PEACE TALKS never go anywhere in my paper?
Related:
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
